Much to Adam's Relief: The Resurrection

We can come across an idea or insight that completely changes the way we think about something.  We could be in a terrible place in our life and not even know it.  The Resurrection is a good place to find new meaning.

The Resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a vast and underdeveloped piece of real estate for gaining direction in our lives.  There is an unfortunate tendency in the Church today to think that the resurrection of one’s body is of little consequence for the way we ought to live.  Of course, seeing the world in a predominantly spiritual way is the right thing to do. We think of life on earth and eternal life through the eyes of the Spirit we might say.  Unfortunately, however, the complete elimination of the importance of the meaning of the human body from the concept of human salvation is not an authentic Catholic approach.  Practically, many of us make the mistake of thinking that it is enough to let Jesus Christ bear the cross on which He battles against evil, while we remain bystanders. 

Are we to expect the salvation of our souls without living righteously for Him while here in our mortal bodies?  Jesus manifests His wounded, side, hands and feet to the Apostles thus showing them and us that sin has a lasting effect.  Doesn’t He mean that we too must bear this fight in our own bodies? On a more positive note, when He eats fish in front of them, isn’t this action reinforcing the fact that the human body, with its affections, is important in the Resurrection, in Eternity?  Even if Grandma is experiencing perfect happiness in Heaven, her happiness will increase when she gets her body back.  Our bodies have meaning.  Everything about the human body has meaning. And the harm done to the human person, both body and soul, is something that must be healed by the power of the grace of Christ.  The Great Physician gives us the medicine of salvation, but in and through our bodies we must follow our Divine Doctor's orders: “You must deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me.” (Mt 16:24)

Here is another point to ponder.  Isn’t it interesting, as the Acts of the Apostles says, that the Son of Man’s life was exchanged for the life of a murderer?  Peter said, “You denied the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you.” (Acts 3:14) What an indictment that is!  What does a murderer do?  He kills the body.  So the one who saved the human person through the Resurrection of the body, through restoring life to the body, is put to death instead of one whose true crime was killing the body.

It has been quite clear since the beginning of time that sin destroys the body.  This was always Satan’s intent.  He hates the human body.  Jesus was put to death in the body on account of sin and conquers Satan through this as He rises from the dead.  Sin enters into human history as a rejection of God at the same time as its bite injects its deadly poison into the human body.  The first sin is disobedience to God born out of distrust for His creation.  He created the human person, masculine and feminine, with all their differences and with each of their bodies being gifted for their proper roles on earth. 

Adam would have understood immediately the meaning of the wounded side of Christ.  We can surely imagine Adam gazing upon the Crucifixion as the lance opened Jesus’ side. The Old Adam would know and understand the importance of this because it is from his side that the first woman came.  From the side of Christ, the New Adam, flow the blood and water that give life to the bride of Christ, the Church.  He would know that this New Man does not run.  He does not shrink from the protection of His bride and He most certainly does not cause her to sin.  He helps her avoid sinning, all the time.  Even now, we can almost hear the sigh of relief as Adam witnesses, first hand, the undoing of his failure.

So Adam, where are you? Man of today, where are you?  Are you an old Adam or a new Adam?  Where are you, Adam, when your bride, your Eve, is subject to the threat of losing her soul through disobedience to God? Is she going to suffer anew on your account? Her body is at risk of suffering for all eternity because you would allow her to be used for an immoral purpose.  You Christian men, today, do you respect your wives, your beloved, your female friends and acquaintances? Are you like the old Adam or the new Adam, Jesus?  Do you distrust her body?  Do you seek to distort the feminine beauty of her body by pressure to do things below her human and feminine dignity? Do you distort the truth of love for the female body? Do you women distrust your own bodies? Do you fall prey to the domination that came from the fall so present in our culture?  You see, this is the root of the current crisis that the bishops are battling with the President.  That is why there is such a moral problem with contraception and sterilization.  They are sins against the body.  They are sins of distrust of God and his creation of the body.  These acts are choices for the life of the original murderer, the ancient serpent, over the life of the Savior whose body is given up to nourish the Church. They are sins against the Resurrection.

The power of the Resurrected Man, Christ, the New Adam, gives us, also, the model of the Church, the mother of those baptized into Christ.  When we approach Him at the altar, He gives us His body, consummating His love for His Bride, the Church.  Members of the Church must let this Lord lead them to a new respect for the body and human love.  Let Him be the model of relations between man and woman.  Science supports us in this. There have been many advances in the sciences in recent decades that fully support the way human beings were made, male and female, and are consistent with Christ’s teaching in the Church.  This new knowledge will allow you to live in accordance with God’s plan for your life.  This will help you faithfully and intelligently plan your family without offending God.  Please contact me if you want to learn more. 

This is your second chance, Adam.  Do not let the serpent bite you again.

For more information  check this website:  http://www.popepaulvi.com.

Contraception Insults God!

The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and from it flow all the other mysteries of the faith.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that this mystery is the mystery of “God in himself.” All that is revealed about the meaning of God’s creation, particularly the image of God, male and female, is built upon this most fundamental and essential teaching.


The life to which men and women are called from the moment of their creation is found precisely in friendship with God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the saints.  This pattern inherited from the Most Holy Trinity, a unity of life and love, is essential to all human relationships, and, in a particular way, to that special form of friendship between husband and wife.  Spousal love that is authentically human, after the communion of the Most Holy Trinity, is open to new life.  Why?  Because God, Love, is the source of all life and generates new life.  To prevent life is to kill love.  To step in and block the gift of the human faculty of generating new life is an insult to God who created that power.


From the beginning of the Church, in fidelity to the teaching of the Jesus regarding the human person and human love, she has expressed the truth about the Most Holy Trinity in the moral principle that being faithful in marriage means that every act of marital must be open to life.  Throughout the Church’s 2000 year history this truth about the human person and human sexuality has been taught consistently by the Church’s pastors. Practically, this means that doing anything to prevent the procreative end of the marital act is an offense against the pattern of human married love who is God Himself.  The time since the formulation of the first oral contraceptive pill, which prevents life, has been devastating for family life because the family is patterned on God.  Now, sexually transmitted diseases are epidemic, as many people divorce as remain married, and almost half of all children born in the US are born out of wedlock.


A report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention states, “Contraceptive use in the United States is virtually universal among women of reproductive age: 98 percent of all women who had ever had intercourse had used at least one contraceptive method.” A significant portion of this percentage is attributable to the “pill,” now in use for slightly over 50 years.


The moral teaching in the Catechism is clear: contraception in all its forms is a grave sin and intrinsically evil. When the Catechism says intrinsically evil, it means there is no motive that would allow one to contracept directly. More serious still are the forms that can result in the death of the embryo, such as the pill. 


Given the very clear teaching on the matter and the widespread use of contraceptives, particularly the pill, over the last 50 years, the Church in the US is faced with a chronic and pervasive pastoral problem.  It would be a mistake, however, to think that this problem is one that is only practical--only a failure of priests to teach or in the failure of the faithful to adhere to this teaching.  What is missing is the authentic concept of the human person that the Church has a duty to uphold in society.  It is the Church’s responsibility to stand as a beacon in society, illuminating the truth about the dignity of the human person.  What is lacking, however, in the preaching and teaching of many of the Church's pastors is that pastoral connection between the sin of contraception and the loss of the sense of human dignity.

The loss of human dignity associated with the rise to dominance of the pill and other forms of contraceptives in the place of human love provokes a profound sense of sadness.  Men and women united in the state of Holy Matrimony have received the gift and responsibility of showing the world a reflection of the mystery of  “God in himself.”  From that perspective, the sadness of the matter comes not so much from the sin committed, which God forgives and heals, as from the good that is lost.

Within the Church many of us, priests and lay faithful, are living with a woefully impoverished concept of the human person.  We have all but replaced the concept of the human person modeled upon the Most Holy Trinity with a false concept that leaves little room for vigorous faith and authentic human love, something we need to work to rediscover.  The only way we could be content with the status quo is to give in to the materialistic notion that life requires choices of economic prudence over the value of the divine image.  When we rediscover the truth of the Most Holy Trinity as the divine pattern for love and believe again in who we are, Catholics, all Christians, and many others will, again, see the pill for the awful curse upon the human family that it is.

(For about 12 years I wrote editiorials for the St. Louis Review.  I wrote this in 2010 and reworked it here for the blog.)

Ella and the President's Mandate

Ella causes abortion. This link tells how.

Ella is covered under the new HHS mandate for insurance as a so-called emergency contraceptive.  So Catholic dioceses and agencies will have have to pay for plans that include this coverage.  Ella is a progesterone modulator that is called ulipristal acetate.  It could be described as a weaker formula of the drug mifepristone popularly known as the abortion drug, RU-486.

Of course, the promoters of the drug argue it stops ovulation while acknowledging that it is a selective progesterone receptor modulator.  The problem with that argument is that the science behind the drug completely contradicts their claim.  Their claims are purely political, not scientific.  If the drug blocks progesterone production, it can act to prevent implantation of an embryo.

Menstrual cycle

The chart to the right, which one can find almost anywhere, clearly shows that progesterone levels certainly do not rise much prior to ovulation, but after ovulation there is a notable increase. The chart also shows how the endometrial lining which can support the embryo develops under the influence of progesterone after ovulation has occurred.

Apparently, Ella makers and the FDA claim that blocking progesterone production in turn blocks ovulation and nothing more. That is absurd as any scientific chart similar to the one shown here will demonstrate. In the body, following upon ovulation, progesterone is produced by the corpus luteum, which is what remains of the ovarian follicle after ovulation occurs. To suggest that a progesterone blocker such as Ella only prevents ovulation is nothing short of a deliberate falsehood and a political hoax of the worst kind.

Progesterone acts to prepare the endometrium, the lining of the uterus, to sustain the developing embryo that is formed at conception.  No progesterone, no continuation of pregnancy.  In other words, if a woman is ovulating around the time of taking Ella, after intercourse, the consequence of ingesting the drug will be the ejection of the young embryo from the womb of the mother.  This is quite clearly an abortion.
On the basis of experience with RU-486, those who testified before the FDA against approval of the drug warned of the serious adverse effects for women who would use the Ella drug.  RU-486 was linked directly to deaths and numerous hospitalizations.  Much like the science behind the drug itself, this testimony was completely ignored.

It should be clear to all concerned what is at stake here for the Church.  The Church cannot follow the mandate because the Church herself would be implicated in the direct killing of innocent human life which she condemns with the most severe of remedial penalties. According to the universal law of the Church, the penalty for deliberately aborting is automatic excommunication.  Abortion includes the ejection or destruction of the embryo between conception and implantation.  Ella does exactly that.  Ella is also potentially dangerous to women.  The use of the drug can only be rejected.

The Life-Giving Process is Sacred

I taped a television spot for the diocese today and one of the questions involved something I had written about some time ago.  It seems somewhat relevant to the debates about contraception coverage.  I thought I would post is here.  This was a response to a question which I answered for the St Louis Review.  Be sure to read the last paragraph.

'Dear Father'
What did the saints really write about abortion?
by Father Edward Richard, MS


Q: I've read people try to justify abortion by citing the writings of Sts. Aquinas and Augustine. How can they do that?

A: The argument that certain writings of Sts. Augustine and Aquinas are not consistent with the truth of Church teaching on the grave sinfulness of abortion is false. These saints taught the serious sinfulness of deliberate abortion and they believed that the child in the womb was human from the start. (See Anne B. Gardiner's article in the New Oxford Review, 2004.) In a published interview on the subject (National Catholic Reporter, Jan. 17, 2003), bioethics expert and professor Father Brian Johnstone, CSSR, stated, "There was never any question (in Augustine and Aquinas) of whether terminating a pregnancy was sinful, but rather what kind of sin it was in the early stages -- homicide or something else."

The tortuous logic of the claim originates in a 1970 article by Father Joseph F. Donceel, SJ. Father Donceel uses the medieval biology of St. Thomas Aquinas to question the arguments used by Catholics in support of the teaching identifying abortion as a killing of an innocent human being.

Father Donceel used the outdated biology to assert that in the first several weeks the fetus went through two prior stages, possessing first a vegetative soul then an animal soul, before becoming human. More recent arguments arising out of Father Donceel's musings have gone so far as to assert that no human person exists until the eighth month when the brain is developed to a point when it is capable of a certain level of knowledge.

However, in a refutation of Father Donceel's archaic analysis, David Granfield wrote that according to Thomistic philosophy a rational soul is infused at the moment of fertilization ("Abortion Decision," 1971).

Moreover, Germain Grisez ("Abortion: The Myths, the Realities and the Arguments," 1970) summarizes the whole issue when he states, "If St. Thomas had known about the specific and individual genetic uniqueness of the zygote which makes it biologically a living organism of the human species, he would have supported immediate animation." Grisez is referring to the point that human life begins at fertilization.

The history of the matter and the unbroken tradition condemning abortion is much clearer than those who challenge the Church on this issue would allow. In his book titled "Contraception," John T. Noonan reviews the historical evidence beginning with the very earliest writing we have, the Didache, and continuing on through the Letter of Barnabas from the early second century which holds, "You shall not kill the fetus by an abortion or commit infanticide." Referring to such documents and numerous other writings the testimony of history is so strong it leads Noonan to conclude, "The Christians taught that all life must be inviolate, and, using the terms the law reserved for the killing of adults, they charged that not only the destruction of existing life but the interruption of the life-giving process was homicide and parricide. They were led to attach sanctity not only to life but to the life-giving process."


First printed in the St. Louis Review, January 14, 2005.

Senator Mary Landrieu Votes Against Protection of Conscience Rights

13 Catholic Senators Vote Against Protection of Church's Right to Follow Its Own Teaching

In a story from the Times Picayune, by Jonathon Tilove, Landrieu said,

The Blunt amendment simply goes too far,.... It would allow any insurance provider to block any service, preventive or otherwise, that is "contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan." This not only includes preventive birth control medication, which millions of American women rely on, but could also include blood transfusions, organ transplants or hospice care, which some 'sponsors' may find objectionable.

Oh, and Obamacare and the HHS Mandate doesn't go too far? I wonder why she did not do this kind of parsing of the Obamacare bill when she voted for that!

Landrieu thinks the President Obama's "accommodation" is just dandy.

The administration has now modified the policy, and the revised rule, in my view, protects religious freedom and respects the rights of churches and Catholic hospitals and institutions.

Yes, you and about 12 other Catholics in the US Senate.  Since you have publicly stated your support for all of this Senator Landrieu, as a priest from your state, I would like to ask you to publicly repent of the scandal that you are causing.  You need to repent and confess your sins.

Freedom of Religion without Exemption--Tax Exemption, That Is?

Since my last post on the Obamacare mandate I have had many thoughts about the matter, mostly born of frustration. It seems likely to me that the notion of religious liberty will prevail in the end.  However, the persons in control of the executive and legislative branches of the government will not back down from the mandate or revise the regulations in a way that restores respect for the freedom of religious groups in this country.  The solution could be a legal one fought in court.  To me, that means that there is going to be a great deal of constitutional hair-splitting.  I wonder if the meaning of religious liberty that comes out the other end of this fight will look exactly like the one we have come to rely upon.

Church leaders are probably thinking more right now about the freedom to live the faith in the public arena and the best way to continue to operate their programs.  The question on the minds of many Church leaders has to be, "What will I do if my ______________ is forced to provide this coverage?"  Fill in the blank with diocese, hospital, school, university, etc.  Some will pay the penalty or go to jail if it comes to that.  I know that many bishops and religious superiors are willing to fight for the identity of these institutions.  I have to ask, though, if the fight is really going to end on the issue of whether the offensive practices are covered under insurance plans.

On the judicial side, the sense of drama will peak when the concern for keeping the Church's institutions identity intact comes up against the tax exempt status enjoyed by the Church.  Is this issue the crux of the underlying plan of the administration? Does the government want to force the Church, indeed all religious groups, to chose between tax exemption and public witness?  The government's coffers would be greatly enhanced by taxation of religious bodies.

I know that there are those who would consider me ignorant and even foolish for suggesting that tax exemption and religious liberty do not go hand in glove.  I would counter that the weight of authority is against that idea, though.  I know Chief Justice John Marshall's 1819 dictum, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."  In days past that close connection could have been logically self-sustaining in any case, not only taxation of the federal government by the states involved in the McCulloch v. Maryland case.   However, the weight of the arguments might go the opposite direction and support taxing religious organizations.

The tax exemption granted to religious institutions is based, in part, on the fact that these institutions serve a secular purpose.  Will there be arguments now that the tax exemption will not be allowed if the requirements of the HHS mandate are not met by religious employers? In my estimation, the only way to stop this is to teach the demagogues a good lesson by a sound electoral trouncing, a position that tax-exempt organizations are not able to advocate.

The Evil of the Mandate

We are going to hear all sorts of attempts to accommodate the President's Mandate "accommodation" within Catholic ranks.  The chiefs of Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association were obviously given the advance notice they needed to be ready to give the President the shout out on this. There will be many more. They will all make their comments based upon convoluted, moralistic platitudes about the good of providing universal access to health care which, they say, trumps participation in moral evil.  These positions will be mortally flawed.  Will they be corrected?  I would hope so.

Willing cooperation in grave evil in order to secure a benefit for oneself makes the person who cooperates equally guilty of the grave evil.  What is the goal, exactly, of agreeing with the President on this?  Is it because those who go along with the President's mandate want people to have access to these so-called preventive services?  If so, the cooperation in the program of contraception, sterilization, and chemical abortions is immoral and gravely sinful.  Is it because they want to maintain government funding and the ability to "serve" the general public?  The cooperation is still gravely sinful.

In fact, it is quite clear that these agencies and their affiliated institutions cannot cooperate in this plan to provide abortion, sterilization, or contraceptives.  Indeed, this plan of the President's is morally evil, in itself.  It is what moral theology and Catholic doctrine refer to as "intrinsic evil."  Yes, that's right.  The plan itself, not just the acts of abortion, contraception and sterilization, is intrinsically evil.

Please see the following Doctrinal Statement issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on March 13, 1975.  It was called "Quecumque sterilizatio." Some will argue that this doctrinal statement does not apply because we are talking about health insurance plans and not the health care institution as the statement does.  I say, however, that this is a distinction without a difference.  As a matter of fact, on the basis of principles espoused in the document itself, one must conclude that providing the approval of a plan for such gravely immoral actions across a wide array of institutions and circumstances is itself a greater evil than a plan which consents to the evil in one single institution. 

I will post later on the abortion drug issue. 

For convenience sake, I have highlighted some of the more pertinent elements of the CDF's statement.  

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING STERILIZATION IN CATHOLIC HOSPITALS

This Sacred Congregation has diligently considered not only the problem of contraceptive sterilization for therapeutic purposes but also the opinions indicated by different people toward a solution, and the conflicts relative to requests for cooperation in such sterilizations in Catholic hospitals. The Congregation has resolved to respond to these questions in this way:  

1. Any sterilization which of itself, that is, of its own nature and condition, has the sole immediate effect of rendering the generative faculty incapable of procreation, is to be considered direct sterilization, as the term is understood in the declarations of the pontifical Magisterium, especially of Pius XII¹. Therefore, notwithstanding any subjectively right intention of those whose actions are prompted by the care or prevention of physical or mental illness which is foreseen or feared as a result of pregnancy, such sterilization remains absolutely forbidden according to the doctrine of the Church. And indeed the sterilization of the faculty itself is forbidden for an even graver reason than the sterilization of individual acts, since it induces a state of sterility in the person which is almost always irreversible.  

Neither can any mandate of public authority, which would seek to impose direct sterilization as necessary for the common good, be invoked, for such sterilization damages the dignity and inviolability of the human person². Likewise, neither can one invoke the principle of totality in this case, in virtue of which principal interference with organs is justified for the greater good of the person; sterility intended in itself is not oriented to the integral good of the person as rightly pursued “the proper order of goods being preserved”³ inasmuch as it damages the ethical good of the person, which is the highest good, since it deliberately deprives foreseen and freely chosen sexual activity of an essential element. Thus article 20 of the medical-ethics code promulgated by the conference in 1971 faithfully reflects the doctrine which is to be held, and its observance should be urged. 

2. The Congregation, while it confirms this traditional doctrine of the Church, is not unaware of the dissent against this teaching from many theologians. The Congregation, however, denies that doctrinal significance can be attributed to this fact as such, so as to constitute a “theological source” which the faithful might invoke and thereby abandon the authentic Magisterium, and follow the opinions of private theologians which dissent from it⁴. 

3. Insofar as the management of Catholic hospitals is concerned:  

a) Any cooperation which involves the approval or consent of the hospitals to actions which are in themselves, that is, by their nature and condition, directed to a contraceptive end, namely, in order that the natural effects of sexual actions deliberately performed by the sterilized subject be impeded, is absolutely forbidden. For the official approbation of direct sterilization and, a fortiori, its management and execution in accord with hospital regulations, is a matter which, in the objective order, is by its very nature (or intrinsically) evil. The Catholic hospital cannot cooperate with this for any reason. Any cooperation so supplied is totally unbecoming the mission entrusted to this type of institution and would be contrary to the necessary proclamation and defense of the moral order. 

b) The traditional doctrine regarding material cooperation, with the proper distinctions between necessary and free, proximate and remote, remains valid, to be applied with the utmost prudence, if the case warrants. 

c) In the application of the principle of material cooperation, if the case warrants, great care must be taken against scandal and the danger of any misunderstanding by an appropriate explanation of what is really being done. 

This Sacred Congregation hopes that the criteria recalled in this letter will satisfy the expectations of that episcopate, in order that, with the uncertainties of the faithful cleared up, the Bishops might more easily respond to their pastoral duty. 

Franjo Cardinal Šeper
Prefect 

Most Rev. Jérôme Hamer, O.P.  Titular Archbishop of Lorium 

Secretary 

l. Cf. especially the two Allocutions to the Catholic Union of Obstetricians and to the International Society of Hematology: AAS 43 (1951) 843-844; 50 (1958) 734-737 and in the encyclical of Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 14: AAS 60 (1968) 490-491.
2. Cf. Pius XI, the encyclical Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930) 565.
3. Paul VI, the encyclical Humanae Vitae: AAS 60 (1968) 487.
4. Cf. Vatican Council II, constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 25, 1: AAS 57 (1965) 29-30; Pius XII, Allocution to the Most Reverend Cardinals: AAS 46 (1954) 672; the encyclical Humani Generis: AAS 42 (1950) 568; Paul VI, Allocution to the meeting regarding the theology of Vatican Council II: AAS 58 (1966) 889-896 (especially 890-894); Allocution to the Members of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer: AAS 59 (1967) 960-963 (especially 962).

 

Lying is to be condemned. Catechism #2485

The US Conference of Bishops does not seem to think the White House is telling the truth about the Health Care Coverage Mandate.  The News Release containing the Q and A, below, is saved from the Bishops' website.  Before you read the responses to the claims of the Obama administration, take a moment to renew your knowledge on the morality of lying.

Lying is defined by the Catechism as "a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others."  It continues, "The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity.  The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray." 2485

"Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another.  It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision.  It contains the seed of discord and of all consequent evils.  Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships." 2486 

In the responses, I have highlighted the charges of falsehood.

White House Misrepresents Its Own Contraceptive Mandate

February 3, 2012

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued the following response to the February 2 post on the White House blog.

Full text follows:

The Obama administration, to justify its widely criticized mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage in private health plans, has posted a set of false and misleading claims on the White House blog (“Health Reform, Preventive Services, and Religious Institutions,” February 1).In what follows, each White House claim is quoted with a response.

Claim: “Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.”

Response: This is not entirely true.To be eligible, even churches and houses of worship must show the government that they hire and serve primarily people of their own faith and have the inculcation of religious values as their purpose.Some churches may have service to the broader community as a major focus, for example, by providing direct service to the poor regardless of faith.Such churches would be denied an exemption precisely because their service to the common good is so great.More importantly,the vast array of other religious organizations – schools, hospitals, universities, charitable institutions – will clearly not be exempt.

Claim: “No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception: The President and this Administration have previously and continue to express strong support for existing conscience protections.For example, no Catholic doctor is forced to write a prescription for contraception.”

Response: It is true that these rules directly apply to employers and insurers, not providers, but this is beside the point:The Administration is forcing individuals and institutions, including religious employers, to sponsor and subsidize what they consider immoral.Less directly, the classification of these drugs and procedures as basic “preventive services” will increase pressures on doctors, nurses and pharmacists to provide them in order to participate in private health plans – and no current federal conscience law prevents that from happening.Finally, because the mandate includes abortifacient drugs, it violates one of the “existing conscience protections” (the Weldon amendment) for which the Administration expresses “strong support.”

Claim: “No individual will be forced to buy or use contraception: This rule only applies to what insurance companies cover.Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible.But no one will be forced to buy or use contraception.”

Response: The statement that no one will be forced to buy it is false.Women who want contraception will be able to obtain it without co-pay or deductible precisely because women who do not want contraception will be forced to help pay for it through their premiums.This mandate passes costs from those who want the service, to those who object to it.

Claim: “Drugs that cause abortion are not covered by this policy: Drugs like RU486 are not covered by this policy, and nothing about this policy changes the President’s firm commitment to maintaining strict limitations on Federal funding for abortions. No Federal tax dollars are used for elective abortions.”

Response: False.The policy already requires coverage of Ulipristal (HRP 2000 or “Ella”), a drug that is a close analogue to RU-486 (mifepristone) and has the same effects.[i] RU-486 itself is also being tested for possible use as an “emergency contraceptive” – and if the FDA approves it for that purpose, it will automatically be mandated as well.

Claim:“Over half of Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover contraception: Several of these States like North Carolina, New York, and California have identical religious employer exemptions.Some States like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all.”

Response: This misleads by ignoring important facts, and some of it is simply false.All the state mandates, even those without religious exemptions, may be avoided by self-insuring prescription drug coverage, by dropping that particular coverage altogether, or by taking refuge in a federal law that pre-empts any state mandates (ERISA).None of these havens is available under the federal mandate.It is also false to claim that North Carolina has an identical exemption.It is broader:It does not require a religious organization to serve primarily people of its own faith, or to fulfill the federal rule’s narrow tax code criterion.Moreover, the North Carolina law, unlike the federal mandate, completely excludes abortifacient drugs like Ella and RU-486 as well as “emergency contraceptives” like Preven.

Claim: “Contraception is used by most women: According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception.”

Response: This is irrelevant, and it is presented in a misleading way. If a survey found that 98% of people had lied, cheated on their taxes, or had sex outside of marriage, would the government claim it can force everyone to do so? But this claim also mangles the data to create a false impression.The study actually says this is true of 98% of “sexually experienced” women.The more relevant statistic is that the drugs and devices subject to this mandate (sterilization, hormonal prescription contraceptives and IUDs) are used by 69% of those women who are “sexually active” and “do not want to become pregnant.”Surely that is a minority of the general public, yet every man and woman who needs health insurance will have to pay for this coverage.The drugs that the mandate’s supporters say will be most advanced by the new rule, because they have the highest co-pays and deductibles now, are powerful but risky injectable and implantable hormonal contraceptives, now used by perhaps 5% of women.The mandate is intended to change women’s reproductive behavior, not only reflect it.

Claim: “Contraception coverage reduces costs: While the monthly cost of contraception for women ranges from $30 to $50, insurers and experts agree that savings more than offset the cost.The National Business Group on Health estimated that it would cost employers 15 to 17 percent more not to provide contraceptive coverage than to provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of potentially unintended and unhealthy pregnancy and indirect costs such as employee absence and reduced productivity.”

Response: The government is violating our religious freedom to save money?If the claim is true it is hard to say there is a need for a mandate: Secular insurers and employers who don’t object will want to purchase the coverage to save money, and those who object can leave it alone.But this claim also seems to rest on some assumptions: That prescription contraceptives are the only way to avoid “unintended and unhealthy pregnancy,” for example, or that increasing access to contraceptives necessarily produces significant reductions in unintended pregnancies.The latter assumption has been cast into doubt by numerous studies (see http://old.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/contraception-fact-sheet-3-17-11.pdf).

Claim: “The Obama Administration is committed to both respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services. And as we move forward, our strong partnerships with religious organizations will continue.”

Response: False.There is no “balance” in the final HHS rule—one side has prevailed entirely, as the mandate and exemption remain entirely unchanged from August 2011, despite many thousands of comments filed since then indicating intense opposition.Indeed, the White House Press Secretary declared on January 31, “I don’t believe there are any constitutional rights issues here,” so little was placed on that side of the scale.The Administration’s stance on religious liberty has also been shown in other ways.Recently it argued before the Supreme Court that religious organizations have no greater right under the First amendment to hire or fire their own ministers than secular organizations have over their leaders– a claim that was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court as “extreme” and “untenable.”The Administration recently denied a human trafficking grant to a Catholic service provider with high objective scores, and gave part of that grant instead to a provider with not just lower, but failing, objective scores, all because the Catholic provider refused in conscience to compromise the same moral and religious beliefs at issue here.Such action violates not only federal conscience laws, but President Obama’s executive order assuring “faith-based” organizations that they will be able to serve the public in federal programs without compromising their faith.

---

[i] See A. Tarantal, et al., 54 Contraception 107-115 (1996), at 114 (“studies with mifepristone and HRP 2000 have shown both antiprogestins to have roughly comparable activity in terminating pregnancy when administered during the early stages of gestation”); G. Bernagiano & H. von Hertzen, 375 The Lancet 527-28 (Feb. 13, 2010), at 527 (“Ulipristal has similar biological effects to mifepristone, the antiprogestin used in medical abortion”).

---

Dr. Albert Mohler, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, On the President's Decision

The President, the Pill, and Religious Liberty in Peril

Dr. Albert Mohler is a good Southern Baptist, a staunch Evangelical, and I appreciate that. I am sure that he is quite brilliant, as well. He has posted many excellent commentaries which I enjoy reading even when he forthrightly declares that the Catholic Church is wrong.  It's a breath of fresh air, really.  He is the kind of fellow with whom I would want to engage in serious ecumenical dialogue.  When it comes to the Catholic Church, Dr. Mohler gives credit where credit is due. Refreshingly, as I indicated, he also calls it like he sees it when he thinks the Catholic Church is wrong on a theological matter. He has often said,"A true evangelical, committed to the Gospel as recovered in the Reformation, and a true Roman Catholic, committed to the teachings of the magisterium, are the last two people on earth who can have an honest disagreement." See what I mean?

In this post, he comments on the President's decision to require religious institutions to violate God's teaching:  "Every president faces decisions that test his character and principles. President Obama has failed this test, and the results will be tragic. He has trampled religious liberty underfoot and has announced his intention to force religious institutions to violate their consciences or go out of business."  Good stuff.

"Time is Running Out"

Cardinal-Designate Dolan: "In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences."  http://usccb.org/news/2012/12-013.cfm, January 22, 2012.

I could not help but reflect upon the battle ahead in light of the 3rd Sunday Readings (OF)

"Forty days more and Nineveh shall be destroyed….”  God gave this prophetic message to Jonah as a sentence upon a nation that had become very proud of its own greatness.  Thoroughly convinced of the wisdom and power of its own leaders, prophets, and achievements, it could not recognize its need to seek true wisdom and enlightenment of the omnipotent Father of all creation.  God, in his mercy, sent Jonah to proclaim repentance. 

“The time is running out.” To this people and their leader, the sentiment expressed in the words uttered by St. Paul, though yet to be spoken, seemed to be understood and to resonate in spite of Nineveh’s (the Assyrian Kingdom's) dominance, prosperity, and all around good fortune. 

"This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand.” Words like these and concern about the judgment of God have certainly been prominent throughout the history of the Church.  When our Blessed Lord comes in the flesh, he begins his public ministry with the proclamation of the Kingdom of God. “Repent, and believe in the gospel."

This past week, events have occurred which should direct us to meditate on these important and prophetic words. 

An alarm was sounded in the address the Holy Father gave to some of the bishops from the US making their 5 year visit to the Holy See.  He said there, “It is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres.” He mentioned the need to be convinced of the seriousness of these threats. “Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.” Then he pointed to two specific problems, the denial of the right to refuse to be part of evil practices and the denial of the respect for freedom of conscience.

He was referring to efforts on the part of the administration to require that Catholic organizations provide sterilizations and chemical abortions to employees in their health care insurance plans.  This would mean, as well, that Catholic hospitals, Catholic doctors and nurses and other health care workers would be required to participate in these things against their conscience.  This will mean that Church-run universities and hospitals will have to participate in these plans. The Department of Health and Human Services has given us one year to comply.  “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

What do you think of all of this? Citizens of the United States? Woe to you. What do you think I will do when the government tells me to do this, to keep my mouth shut, or support this?  ["Looming over the entire exemption is the regulation’s language that HHS “may” exempt churches within the provision’s narrow scope. Nothing aside from the government’s interest in avoiding a court battle stands in the way of simply refusing to exempt even a Catholic diocese from the contraceptive mandate." Patrick Reilly, "The Fight To Be Catholic, http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-fight-to-be-catholic, January 22, 2012.] What will you do when I am removed from this parish, fined, or put in jail for refusal to participate or for teaching against these evils?  I assure you, I will not go against my conscience or the Church’s teaching on this. You judges, you lawyers, you legislators, you politicians, you police officers? What will you do?   What will you do when your doctor is suspended from his or her practice for violating these laws? Woe to you.

Perhaps hearing all of this is distressing to you. It is more than that to me.  Hearken, therefore, to the words of Jesus: "This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."  And to those of St. Paul: “The time is running out.”

I would like to be able to tell you that the Holy Father, Cardinal-Designate Dolan, and the many others who have voiced their alarm are just crying wolf.  They are not. (Really, I ask, how often do we get anything that straightforward from the Pope or a major prelate when it comes to our government's actions?  It must be bad!) We must be convinced, more than ever, that we need the power of God to assist us in this spiritual battle to protect our freedom and the right to live out our faith as followers of Christ.